No. 2 BIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/202 STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF ALBANY ee LORRAINE THOMPSON, VALERIAN MASAO, KERRY MCCAREY, JOHN WALLACE AND KAREN JAMACK, DANIEL FIATO AND. NATASHA FIATO, NATHANIEL GRAY, DANIEL MAIER AND JOANNE MAIER, KIRK RHATIGAN AND RACHEL APUNTE, NICK ESPOSITO, TIMOTHY GROSS AND SUSAN GROSS, GERTRUDE PRATER, CHRISTINE DELSIGNORE, JOHN BOHL AND KATHLEEN BOHL, BARBARA RISCAVAGE, ANGELA VANFONDA, PHILLIP ROWLANDS AND CYNTHIA ROWLANDS, EBEN COREY AND JANINE GOETZ, AMY MUSIKER, LORI DEMPF, STEVEN KONAS AND SUSAN KONAS, LYNNE MCLEER, AND SHERI CANFIELD NOTICE OF PETITION Index: Petitioners, -against- ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED ALBANY PORT DISTRICT COMMISSION TOWN OF BETHLEHEM PLANNING BOARD, TOWN OF BETHLEHEM ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, AND TOWN OF BETHLEHEM Respondents. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed verified petition and the exhibits annexed thereto, the undersigned attomeys will move this Court at the Albany County Courthouse located at 16 Eagle Street, Albany, New York 12207, at 9:30 a.m. on August 25, 2022, or soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, for an Order pursuant to Section 282 of the Town Law of the State of New York, to review and annul the Respondents Approvals for the project known as “Albany Port District Commission Industrial Park Project (Port of Albany Expansion Marmon/ Welcon Off Shore Wind Tower Manufacturing Plan),” the SEQR Findings including but not limited to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Findings, SEQR Determinations, Zoning Board of Appeals Decision and Planning Board Conditional Site Plan Approval Resolution dated May 17, 2022, filed May 18, 2022 with the Town of Bethlehem Clerk, and for such other and further relief as may be just, proper and equitable.YSCEF Doc. No. 2 ECBIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/202 PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that an answer, certified transcript of the record of the proceeding, and supporting affidavits, if any, shall be served at least five days before the aforesaid date of hearing pursuant to Sections 7804(c) and 7804(e) of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. Dated: June 17, 2021 D DEMPF, LLP Albany, New York RGhristopherDempf, Esq, Attorneys for Petitioners 515 Broadway Albany, New York 12207 Telephone: (518) 463-1177 Email: redempf@tdlaws.com To: — Albany Port District Commission, Town of Bethlehem Planning Board, Town of Bethlehem Zoning Board of Appeals, and Town of BethlehemYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/202 STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF ALBANY LORRAINE THOMPSON, VALERIAN MASAO, KERRY MCCAREY, JOHN WALLACE AND KAREN JAMACK, DANIEL FIATO AND NATASHA FIATO, NATHANIEL GRAY, DANIEL MAIER AND JOANNE MAIER, KIRK RHATIGAN AND RACHEL APUNTE, NICK ESPOSITO, TIMOTHY GROSS AND SUSAN GROSS, GERTRUDE PRATER, CHRISTINE DELSIGNORE, JOHN BOHL AND KATHLEEN BOHL, BARBARA RISCAVAGE, ANGELA VANFONDA, PHILLIP ROWLANDS AND CYNTHIA ROWLANDS, EBEN COREY AND JANINE GOETZ, AMY MUSIKER, LORI DEMPF, STEVEN KONAS AND SUSAN KONAS, LYNNE MCLEER, AND SHERI CANFIELD VERIFIED PETITION Index: Petitioners, -agninst- ALBANY PORT DISTRICT COMMISSION TOWN OF BETHLEHEM PLANNING BOARD, TOWN OF BETHLEHEM ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, AND TOWN OF BETHLEHEM Respondents. Petitioners, Lorraine Thompson, Valerian Masao, Kerry McCarey, John Wallace and Karen Jamack, Daniel Fiato and Natasha Fiato, Nathaniel Gray, Daniel Maier and Joanne Maier, Kirk Rhatigan and Rachel Apunte, Nick Esposito, Timothy Gross and Susan Gross, Gertrude Prater, Christine Delsignore, John Boh! and Kathleen Bohl, Barbara Riscavage, Angela Vanfonda, Phillip Rowlands and Cynthia Rowlands, Eben Corey and Janine Goetz, Amy Musiker, Lori Dempf, Steven Konas and Susan Konas, Lynne Mcleer, and Sheri Canfield by and through their attorneys, Tobin and Dempf, LLP, as and for a Verified Petition, upon information and beliefYSCEF Doc. No. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/202 state as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This is an Article 78 proceeding to review the project known as the Albany Port District Commission Industrial Park Project (Port of Albany Expansion Marmon/ Welcon Off Shore Wind Tower Manufacturing Plant) (hereinafter known as “Wind Tower Factory”), the actions of Respondents, Town of Bethlehem Planning Board, Town of Bethlehem, Zoning Board of Appeals, Albany Port District Authority. Petitioners seek to annul and reverse such resolutions and for an Order pursuant to Section 282 of the Town Law of the State of New York, to review and ultimately annul the Planning Board’s SEQR resolutions allegedly and upon information and belief summarized as follows: on May 5, 2020 declaring the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the project complete and issuing a findings statement; a resolution on June 2, 2020, of a SEQR positive declaration and that it would continue as lend agency; that additional site requirements were determined necessary by the Applicant and that it resolved on July 6, 2021 that a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) would be required and submitted by Applicant dated October 2021 with public comments and public hearing held December 7, 2021 with public comments through December 17, 2021; resolution adopted March 1, 2022 declaring the final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) complete and thereafter it issued its SEQR findings statement pursuant to resolution adopted March 15, 2022, that the Zoning Board of Appeals granted certain height, setback, planting and other variances, and thereafter the Planning Board issued its site plan approval dated May 17, 2022 which was then filed in the Town of Bethlehem Cletk’s office on March 18, 2022; “Site Plan Approval” resolution dated May 17, 2022, filed May 18, 2022 in the Bethlehem Town Clerk's Office , and to grant the Petitioners such other and further relief as theYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSi 17/202 Court may deem just, proper, and equitable to otherwise annul and reverse the Planning Board's determination made on May 17, 2022 and filed in the Town of Bethlehem ‘Clerk's Office on May 18, 2022, (see Approval documents referred to as Exhibit “A”) referred to here as “Wind Tower. Factory”. PARTIES 2 Petitioners, Lorraine Thompson, Valerian Masao, Kerry McCarey, John Wallace and Karen Jamack, Daniel Fiato and Natasha. Fiato, Nathaniel Gray, Daniel Maier and Joanne Maier, Kirk Rhetigan and Rachel Apunte, Nick Esposito, Timothy Gross and Susan Gross, Gertrude Prater, Christine Delsignore, John Bohl and Kathleen Bohl, Barbara Riscavage, Angela ‘Vanfonda, Phillip Rowlands and Cynthia Rowlands, Eben Corey and Janine Goetz, Amy ‘Musiker, Lori Dempf, Steven Konas and Susan Konas, Lynne Mcleer, and Sheri Canfield at all times relevant, were and owners and/or residents of certain real property adversely impacted by the proposed Wind Tower Factory along River Road in the Town of Bethlehem, Albany County, New York, and Respondents’ decisions and approvals herein. a Lorraine Thompson 38 Old River Road Glenmont, New York 12077 b Valerian Masao 30 Old River Road Glenmont, New York 12077 °, Garrett McCarey 36 Old River Road Glenmont, New York 12077 d, John Wallace end Karen Jamack 35 Old River Road Glenmont, New York 12077YSCEF Doc. No 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/202 Daniel Fiato and Netasha Fiato 5 Anders Lane Glenmont, New York 12077 Nathaniel Gray 9 Anders Lane Glenmont, New York 12077 Daniel Maier and Joanne Maier 11 Anders Lane Glenmont, New York 12077 Kirk Rhatigan and Rachel! Apunte 93 Glenmont Road Glenmont, New York 12077 Nick Esposito 224 River Road Glenmont, New York 12077 Timothy Gross and Susan Gross (Also, owners of 215 River Road) 219 River Road Glenmont, New York 12077 Gertrude Prater 215 River Road Glenmont, New York 12077 Christine Delsignore 201 River Road Glenmont, New York 12077 John and Kathleen Bohl (Also, owners of 187 River Road; Lot on 185 River Road Corner of River Road and Halter Road; and Glenmont, New York 12077 10 Halter Road) Barbara Riscavage 177 River Road Glenmont, New York 12077 Angela Venfonda 175 River Road Glenmont, New York 12077YSCEF DOC. NO. 1 3. RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/202 Phillip Rowlands and Cynthia Rowlands (Owners of Tax Map No. 98.01- 54 Halter Road 1-17 (89.90 Acres) and No. Glenmont, New York 12077 90.01-1-16 (.57 Acres) Eben Corey and Janine Goetz 117 Retreat House Road Glenmont, New York 12077 Amy M. Musiker 146 Glenmont Road Glenmont, New York 12077 Lori A. Dempf 74 Hartman Road Glenmont, New York 12077 Steven Konas and Susan Konas 16 Wiggand Drive Glenmont, New York 12077 Lynne Mcleer 15 Mallard Road Glenmont, New York 12077 Sheri Canfield 23 David Glenmont, New York 12077 The Petitioners seek to reverse and annul Respondents Application/Approvals on multiple substantive and procedural grounds. 4. Given such proximity, the character of the proposed project and development, the failure of the Respondent Planning Boatd to act in the manner prescribed by law, the adverse affect on the of quiet enjoyment of Petitioners” properties, the adverse impact on Petitioners’ real Property and the value thereof, as well as adversely affecting Petitioners’ use, health, safety, and welfare of same, resulting from Respondents’ approval, Petitioners are aggrieved persons. 5. Respondent, Town of Bethlehem Planning Board (“Planning Board”) and ZoningYSCEF Doc. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/202 Board of Appeals are duly organized Boards of the Town of Bethlehem existing pursuant to Town Law § 271 et seq.. 6. Respondent, Town of Bethlehem (“Town”), is municipal corporation existing by and under the laws of the State of New York, 7. Respondent Albany Port District Commissions is a public benefit corporation existing and operating by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with offices at 106 Smith Boulevard, Albany, New York 12202, FACTS 8. Pursuant to New York Town § 282, this proveeding is brought to review and ultimately annul the Board’s various SEQR resolutions and findings as well as the Zoning board of Appeals decision and to annul and reverse its conditional Site Approval dated May 17, 2022 and filed in the Town of Bethlehem Clerk's office on May 18, 2022 on the grounds that its various decisions were arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law and the facts disclosed by the record, which record will be submitted by Respondent Town as part of this proceeding, for which Petitioners reserves the right to supplement, 9. Notice: Petitioners were not provided adequate notice of the public meetings and Were not noticed with an opportunity to comment and provide input for the development of the environmental impact statement, Written notice should have been provided to all residents impacted by this project. Respondents disregarded the required notice. Respondents provided mailed written notice to residents within 200 feet but here the recipients of such notice are commercial owners, Not to providé such written notice to residential property owners within the impact area (1-2 miles) for the present 80 acre project, with near and distant views and impacts, is not within the spirit of the law and the duties that a lead agency supervising the EnvironmentalYSCEF Doc. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/202 Impact Statement Process is mandated to follow. 10. Failure to Consider the Character of the Neighborhood: Petitioners, especially those living on Old River Road, Anders Lane, Glenmont Road, River Road, Halter Road, and Retreat House Road, were within the area most adversely and directly impacted yet ignored. The GEIS and SEIS fail to identify the nearby residences (mostly existing long before zoning codes Were established in the Town of Bethlehem). (See Exhibit “B” and “C” — which are Google Maps with Petitioners, neighborhoods and schoo! buildings identified). 11, Visual Impact; Respondents, rather than continue an existing buffer from River Road on the City of Albany side of the Port, chose to diminish the buffer as shown on the Visual Impact Assessment Report (“Appendix A”) to maximize the building size making this project incompatible with the surrounding neighborhoods -- 3,600 foot visual building site along River Road with four massive buildings, between 83 and 110 feet tall, and twenty, 27-foot tall smoke stacks (12 football fields in width). The Report does not provide distances of the nearby homes from the proposed site. The Visual Impact Assessment Report only specifically identifies one home, on Old River Road, as being visual impacted. This is simply not true. All Parties referred to in Paragraph 2 (a) -(r) above are visually impacted. For example, see Fiato Pictures (and concerns about vehicle accidents, fly ash, and pollution, noise and safety of children), § Anders Lane (Exhibit “D"); Gross-Prater Pictures, 219 and 215 River Road ( Exhibit “E”); Riscavage Picture, 177 River Road (Exhibit “F”), Respondents’ Visual Impact Assessment Report fails to consider distant views from Rowlands’ 89 acre property, Musiker’s 55 acre property, as well as views from property owners along Halter Road and River Road, Anders Lane, Glenmont Road, Old River Road, and Retreat House Road,YSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/202 The Visual Impact Assessment report date July 2021, updated October 2021, does not show the smoke stacks (Attachment 9) to scale nor does it show the massive size of the building and smoke stacks in comparison with the existing Petitioners houses along River Road, for example, The visual analysis is deficient. Also, to show the square footage without length and ‘width of the massive buildings defeats the purpose of the analysis, It would have been helpful if Respondents showed a simulation of what 110-foot tall buildings would look like for all seasons from multiple locations, ‘The visual analysis relied upon by the Respondents reflects July photographs and fails to show the seasonal changes, which is misleading. There are no leaves on the trees from November through mid- May—6 % months. Thus, half the year is missing ftom the visual analysis. Further, while there is # visual simulation along the Hudson River, no such visual simulation was provided along River Road and the properties identified hereisi at paragraph 2 (a) ~ (1) at different topographic levels of sight. ‘The Respondents’ Visual Impact Assessment Report relied on two resources for preparation and cited: (1) NYS DEC: DEP - Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts, and (2) NYS DOT: Guidelines for Visual Impact Assessment of Highway Projects. Importantly, those resources suggest the following: Visual Impact Assessment (or VIA) is the analysis of the potential visual impacts to the landscape and landscape views resulting from a proposed development or land management action. (The Bureau of Land Management ~ Visual Impact Assessment Methodologies). ‘Visual impacts caused by a highway project are seen both by people travelling on the road and by neighbors adjacent to it, The importance of views from the road has long been recognized. In recreation surveys, Americans have repeatedly ranked pleasure driving on scenic roads as one of their favorite activities. Researchers have also shown that the view from the road is the basis for much of what we know about our everyday environment and for our mental image of our surroundings, For this reason, people are rightly concerned with the visual highways traversing their town or city. Research showsRECEIVED NYSCEF: that not only do these first impressions count in how & community is perceived, but they also affect a community's social civility and economic vitality. Roads move more than people, goods and services — they are extensions of a community's values and aesthetic preferences, (NYS DOT: Guidelines for the Visual Impact Assessment of Highway Projects.) Therefore, based on the guidelines presented by both NYS DEC and NYS DOT (and citied in the Visual Impact Assessment Report), itis clear that the approach and assessments fall short of an accurate and reliable identification of highway corridors, neighborhoods and sites ‘where potential visual impacts may occur from construction of the proposed project. In addition to the Petitioners, many neighbors from Quail Hollow, The Legends, Wiggand and Hartman Road, work in downtown Albany, New York and prefer to travel River Road instead of Route W to get to work. These neighbors have signed petitions to annul approval of the Wind Tower Factory, (See Exhibit “G”), 12. Air Quality: The purported report of Respondents’ appears to use a heavy industry standard rather than considering the residential nature of the Petitioners’ and other homes. Air, as well as noise, travels up the hill and over to the neighborhood even a mile or two away from this factory. These factors were not considered by Respondents, rendering the report and approvals deficient, Moreover, there was no consideration of particulate size and likelihood of wind pushing this air pollution uphill to the neighborhoods directly west of the Wind Tower Factory (i.e. Halter Road, Retreat House Road, Quail Hollow, The Legends, and Glenmont Elementary School). The purported study appears conclusory and makes generalized statements without Properly identifying in more detail the types of pollution to be emitted by the Wind Tower Factory and the cumulative effect of the same, ‘The Respondents’ anelysis consists of bald, conclusory statements that were merely accepted by Respondents without taking a hard look at 06/17/202YSCEF Doc. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/202 the issues presented, including whether harmful chemical by-products are likely carried by air currents, especially to adjoining neighborhoods below the Glenmont Hill and, as well as those residential neighborhoods and the Glenmont Elementary School above the Glenmont hillside, 13. Inconsistencies in Approval Documents: The approval documents appear inconsistent. For example, the March 15, 2022 SEIS approved reference to the building size of 589,500 s/f for Buildings A, B,C, D; however, the final SEQR approvel references 604,264 s/f and the Planning Board Conditional Site Plan Approval references 603,238 s/f for these buildings. Such inconsistencies mandate amendment at a noticed public board meeting to be resented, discussed, voted and approved with appropriate filing of the Amended Conditional Site Plan Approval with the Town Clerk's Office. 14. Inaddition to Petitioners, many neighboring residents adversely affected by the massive size and adverse environmental impacts of the Wind Tower Factory, signed the Petition opposing the project residing on: Number of House Hold Old River Road Anders Lane Glenmont Road River Road Halter Road Retreat House Road Hartman Road Quail Hollow Wiggend Drive -ROMMOORD> RyBorsuEd (See Exhibit “G”) VIRON! REVIEW ACTION (“SEOR") 15. A proceeding must be brought within the appropriate time after conditional plat approval, rather than final approval when challenging approval for a subdivision (Entergy ‘Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC v, N.Y. State Dep't of Envtl, Conservation, 2 Mise. 3d 1070 (Sup. 10YSCEF Doc. No. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/202 Ct. Albany Co, 2004)). 16, Under SEQR, the lead agency is required to determine whether or not the Proposed Plan may have significant effects on the envitonment before it approves the action (6 NYCRR § 617.3 [a)). 17, The lead agency must identify relevant areas of environmental concer, take & “hard look” at them, and give written findings that SEQR’s requirements have been satisfied (Matter of Town of Amsterdam v, Amsterdam Indus, Dev. Agency, 95 A.D.3d 1539 [3d Dept. 2012); NY ECL 8-0109 [8]). 18, Under SEQR, a lead agency making a determination of significance in an unlisted action is required to: a. _ Review the environmental assessment form (“BAR”) and any other supporting information to identify the relevant areas of environmental concern; b, Thoroughly analyze the identified relevant areas of environmental concern to determine if the action may have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and © Set forth its determination of significance in a written form containing a reasoned elaboration and providing reference to any supporting documentation, 19, Relevant indicators of significant adverse impacts on the environment include an adverse change or impact on visual conditions, air quality, pollution, noise, traffic, property values and quality of life as well as in ground or surface water quality or quantity; a substantial {increase in potential for erosion or drainage problems; the destruction of large quantities of vegetation or fauna, wildlife; changes in two or more elements of the environment, no one of which has a significant impact on the environment, but when considered together result in a Substantial adverse impact on the environment (6 NYCRR § 6 17); cumulative impacts, 20. Before approving a proposed project, the Board must make express writtenDoc. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/202 findings that SEQR requirements have been satisfied and must prepare a written statement of the facts and conclusions relied on in the final environmental impact statement (“FEIS”) ot comments (Amsterdam, 95 A.D.3d at 1542), 21. “An ageney must comply with both the letter and the spirit of the State Environmental Quality Review Act before it will be found to have discharged its responsibility thereunder” (Schenectady Chemicals, Inc, v. Flacke, 83 A.D.2d 460 [3d Dept. 1981). 22, A lead agency improperly defers its duties when it abdicates its SEQR responsibilities to another agency or insulates itself from environmental decision making (Matter of Riverkeeper, Inc. v, Planning Bd, of Town of Southeast, 9 N.Y.34 219 [2007)). 23. While a Jead agency is encouraged to consider the opinions of experts and other agencies, it must exercise its own judgment in determining whether a particular circumstance adversely impacts the environment (Matter of Riverkeeper, ine, v. Planning Bd, of Town of Southeast, 9 N.Y.3d 219 [2007]). 24. Under New York Town Law §274-, the town board mey authorize the planning board to review and approve or disapprove site plans. 25, The SEQR review did not adequately consider the visual impacts of this project and did not adequately consider that there were pre-existing homes to the Zoning Code, some of which were over 100 years old, existing long before zoning codes, Similarly, the SEQR failed to adequately consider the long existing residential homes and neighborhoods in this area, as relates to traffic, noise and pollution as well as cumulative impacts, 26. The Board was required to determine whether the Plan proposed by Respondent Albany Port District Commission may have significant adverse effects on the environment, take “hard look” at them, and give its written findings, 12YSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/202 27, Although the Respondents were made aware of the adverse change based upon the SEQR review visual site analysis, air quality and noise analysis, roadway traffic congestion and pollution, it did not give it the requisite “hard look.” For example, Petitioners Maier, who reside at 11 Anders Lane, similar to their neighbors, the Fiatos, were concemed about traffic accidents end heavy roadway usage by trucks creating dangerous conditions, See Exhibit “H.” 28. These failures were exacerbated by the Zoning Board of Appeals’ decision to istegard adverse impacts to the Glenmont families and neighborhoods. 29, Rather than requiring the applicant to scale down its project or find another location, the Respondent, Town of Bethlehem, allowed the Respondent, Port of Albany’s self created hardship to supersede the reasonable expectations of some residents — Petitioners who hhave lived in the Glenmont neighborhood for generations, in homes pre-dating the Town's zoning codes. 30. Respondent, Zoning Board of Appeals, misapplied the facts and the law to grant the variances, 31, Certain concems regarding conditions during and after construction diminishing Property, health, safety and quality of life as set forth below were not adequately considered in the DGIS, SDEIS and SEIS, Zoning Board of Appeals variance and the Planning Board Conditional Site Plan approval dated May 17, 2022: a. Building of massive size and height (over 100” tall) (see veriance height and setback) smoke stacks above 100’ buildings. Town expressly not restricting antennas or other utilities ete., on rooftops. (See Exhibit “I”, page 1) b, —_ Narrative July 21, 2021, employees increasing from 350 to $50 24/7 shifts. (See Exhibit “I”, page 2) c, Truck entrance and exit during construction — July 21, 2021. Parking lots for 550 employees working 24/7 shifts. What about noise, light pollution 13YSCEF Doc. No 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 17/202 5000 +/- s/f of rock to be drilled or blasted, or crushed on site, (See Exhibit “I”, page 3) Smoke stacks on “blast metallization paint” building, How tall is building with smoke stacks? Emission from smoke stacks, Rail road access DeMartini business easement access from River Road not shown? Welding plant building fumes and noise building fumes and noise, Internal assembly finishing building noise and fumes. (See Exhibit "I", page 4) ‘Map shows impacted property along (1) Old River Road Q) Anders Lane @) Hartman Road (4) Glenmont Road (5) River Road (6) Halter Road (7) Retreat House Road ‘The maps do not adequately visualize and show the homes and proximity to the Factory, All Factory buildings need to have pilings pounded into the soil toreach bedrock to support the massive building structure, The number of pilings being pounded into the earth is not shown. Cancerous Aly ash is a major health and safety concem. (See Exhibit “I”, page 4) Truck route map as of July 21, 2021shows an entrance to project from power company easement around the hair-pin turn on River Road to as a primary entrance and exit for trucks during construction. Adversely affected neighborhoods including (1) Quail Hotlow 2) Wiggand Drive (3) Glenmont Abbey Village (4) Weiser Street (5) Clara Ave (6) Glenmont Elementary School (See Exhibit “I”, page 5) Initially, traffic analysis for 350 employees now 550 employees is planned. More traffic using proposed River Road drive way access near power plant, Truck traffic during construction will use River Road driveway. More truck traffic than estimated with needed 6 of fill instead of 2’ of fill to cover the fly ash contamination from the power plant. (See Exhibit “I”, page 6) 14YSCEF DOC. NO. 1 ED NYSCEF: 06/17/202 Traffic (Trip Generation) Factory estimate of 350 employees is now 550 employees. These estimates do not seem to consider lunch for employees coming and going during their work shifts for doctor appointments, family errands, meetings offsite. Truck traffic during construction with 6° of fill required instead of 2’ of fill is not consider in this July 21, 2021 study. (See Exhibit “T", page 7) 1f 6" of soil fill the buildings finished floor will be 6’ above the flood plain and the buildings now 106" not 100°. The antennas building mechanicels and other structures will increase the height. Piles being driven into bedrock and noise and air pollution, Noise; dust from fly ash, a known carcinogen, Fly ash contamination of the water table and Hudson River is a concern, “Excavated soils” contaminated with fly ash? Granular fill likely to be substantial and will result in increased trucking into and out of the Factory site during construction. (See Exhibit “I”, page 8) Diesel track will be idling while in line waiting to make deliveries of construction materials and while in line to leave the factory; idling in traffic; air pollution not properly considered. ‘The close proximity of the Factory buildings and parking lots to River Road is inconsistent with existing Albany Port Authority complex with 1000 + set back from River Road and demonstrates that this Factory is too large for this location. Seasonal (winter, spring, summer and fall) visual views with 100" tall buildings not provided. Consider closing off Anders Road and making a dead end street at intersection with River Road (health, safety issues). River Road with limited sight distance remains at SSmph ~ unsafe, Consider Park and Ride with electric buses location so factory and access roads are not burdened with traffic congestion and pollution. For example, a Town owned location leased to port. To Town, i.e. optioned land between River Road and Route 9W along Wemple Road, See Town Board meeting dated June 8, 2022, Failure to consider roof-top gardens on top of factory roofs. ‘Where are on site employee conveniences, cafeteria restaurant, Tavern etc; 15YSCEF Doc. No. w. RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/202 where will truck deliveries for employee services to access the site, and is this considered in the traffic study? Proposed! private waste treatment plant on site for what type of waste? How will waste be removed from site? How will these trucks access the site; what about pollution (air and water)? ‘What about the multiple air and water pollution and odors generated during and after factory construction and who will be monitoring same and how will this information be available to regulating agencies and to the public, How will traffic usage be monitored during construction and after construction and what agency will monitor and how will the public have ‘access to this information? This massive Factory is similar to the Plastics Plant and other heavy industry along Crebie Road and Route 32 near Feura Bush; however there are no homes within one (1) mile of the Selkirk Plastic Plant and industry site thero; the proposed River Road Factory Site while in excess of 300 residential homes exist within one (1) mile of the proposed River Road factory, The review is further deficient in that it fails to consider the adverse effects and cumulative affects with other River Road and Port industries for air quality and pollution on multiple food gardens located at directly impacted properties along Old River Road, Anders Lane, Glenmont Road, River Road, Halter Road, Retreat Home Road and Hartman Road as well as the adversely affected neighborhoods including Quail Hollow, Wiggand Drive, Glenmont Abbey Village, Weiser Street, and Clara Ave,, Many houses in the directly impacted site area already have gardens which fee these families. Respondents fail to consider the loss of 80 + acres of trees and vegetation as a mitigating factor air pollution in the directly impacted area the cumulative surge in CO-2 and other hazardous emissions, traffic congestion, health, safety and welfare, affecting the directly impacted property owners. Many homes in the impacted area have swimming pools and foundations built into existing bedrocks; there is inadequate consideration from the impacts of drilling, pounding, dynamite or the proposed new parking lot access for 550 employees along River Road andthe pile driving necessary construct buildings A, B, C, D; number of pilings required to be made in the fly ash soil is not adequately analyzed and discussed; in order to 16YSCEF Doc, NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/202 support the massive building: (1) Building “A” Plate preparation and welding (299, 250, s/f) 100+/- height approximately 3.3 football fields long and 1 football field wide along River Road. (2) Building “B" Welding finishing (111,000 s/f) height 1 football field long and 1.5 football fields wide along River Road, 3) Building “C” Blast — Metalization - Paint (131,415 s/f) 110 feet high approximately 2 football fields long and 1 hockey rink wide along River Road, with 30° +Y- smoke stacks 4) Building “D" Internal assembly 61,550 s/f, 93 feet high approximate 1 hockey rink long and | football field wide, i Eootball field is 300 feet long) (Hockey rink is 200 feet long) y. The Visual Impact Assessment Report dated July 2021 and updated October 2021 is deficient and skewed. The view scope, if properly sirnulated for this project along River Road, with the bend in the road, will make this project (Building A, B, C, D) appear to be a single, 100-foot high, continuous wall, that is 3,600 feet long. A visual rendering from Smatz Road to Coming Hill and Retreat House Road, as well as the properties of all property owners, would be more accurate, (See Exhibits "BPC." and “0°, 32. The Respondent Planning Board failed to review and thoroughly analyze the adverse environmental effects on the residential homes in proximity of the Applicants" project, are zoned heavy industrial. 33. Respondents in their analysis did not consider cumulative impacts, 34. The reports and SEIS is inadequate to support the Respondents decisions prepared by the Respondent, 35. Although the approval of the Plan was conditional, the Petitioners bring this proceeding within the appropriate time, because after the application meets the conditions required by the Respondent, final approval will occur without further review. 7YSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/202 36. Furthermore, the Respondent Planning Board violated the Town of Bethlehem’s Subdivision Regulations as well as both the procedural and substantive requirements of SEQR and failure to provide a reasoned elaboration of its negative declaration, improper delegation of its responsibilities to the storm water management coordinator, and decision to grant conditional final plat approval, WHEREFORE, besed upon the foregoing Petitioners reserve the right to amend and supplement this petition and Petitioners request that an answer, certified transcript of the record of the proceeding, and supporting affidavits, if any, shall be served at least five days before the aforesaid date of hearing pursuant to Sections 7804(c) and 7804(e) of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.be reversed and annulled and that the Petitioners be awarded with such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. R. Whristpfhe Dempf, Esq, TOBIN(AND\QEMPF, LLP Attorneys for Petitioners 515 Broadway Albany, New York 12207 Telephone: (518) 463-1177YSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/202 STATE OF NEWYORK) Js: COUNTY OF ALBANY) LORRAINE THOMPSON, being duly swom, deposes and says: Your deponent is & petitioner, in the within proceeding; your deponent has read the annexed petition and knows the contents thereof and the same are true to your deponent’s knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged upon information arid belief, and as to those matters, your deponent believes them to be true. The grounds for your deponent’s belief as to all matters not stated upon knowledge are as follows: All books, records and correspondence of the petitioner. LORRAINE THOMPSON Sworn to before me this Lo Bury of June, 2022 of Public é A. CHRISTOPHER DEMPF NOTARY PUBLIC, are Op NEW YORK tattadin tary conn” Gommasion Exr08 Match 26 0-23YSCEF Doc. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/202 STATEOFNEW YORK ) )ss: COUNTY OF ALBANY ) VALERIAN MASAO, being duly sworn, deposes and says: ‘Your deponent is a petitioner, in the within proceeding; your deponent has read the annexed petition and knows the contents thereof and the same are true to your deponent’s knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters, your deponent believes them to be true, The grounds for your deponent’s belief as to all matters not stated upon knowledge are as follows: All books, records and correspondence of the petitioner. RIAN MASAO Sworn to before me this ht day of June, 2022 Nolary Pulflic FL CHRISTOPHER DEN NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK hgsvaion We aroears5r4 ied In Albany Cox 7YSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/202 STATE OF NEW YORK) ) ss: COUNTY OF ALBANY =) KERRY MCCARBY, being duly sworn, deposes and says: ” Your deponent is « petitioner, in the within proceeding; your deponent has read the annexed petition and knows the contents thereof and the same are true to your deponent’s knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters, your deponent believes them to be true, The grounds for your deponent’s belief as to all matters not stated upon knowledge are as follows: All books, records and correspondence of the petitioner. KERRYJMCCAREY Swom to before me this G sayot tune, 2002YSCEF Doc. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF + 06/17/202 STATE OF NEWYORK) ) 88: COUNTY OF ALBANY ) X Toh Wallace x Késesy Jamack: being duly sworn, deposes and says: Your deponent is a petitioner, in the within proceeding; your deponent has read the annexed petition and knows the contents thereof and the same ére true to your deponent’s knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged upon information and bolief, and as to those matters, your deponent believes them to be true, The grounds for your deponent's belief as to all matters not stated upon knowledge are as follows: All books, records and correspondence of the petitioner. r MM % Swom to before me this le day of June, 2022YSCHF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/202 VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK) +) 88; COUNTY OF ALBANY) DANIEL FIATO and NATASHA FIATO, being duly sworn deposes and says: that your doponents are petitioners in the within action; thet your deponents have read the Petition and know the contents thereof, that the seme is true deponent's knowledge, except as to those matters Stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters deponent believes them. to be true. The ground for your deponents belief are as follows: All books, records and correspondence of the Petition, K FIATO N, A FL. Swom to me this day of June, 2022 Nitary PublYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/202 STATE OF NEWYORK =) ss: COUNTY OF ALBANY) NATHANIEL GRAY, being duly swom, deposes and says: Your deponent is a petitioner, in the within proceeding; your deponent has read the annexed petition and knows the contents thereof and the same are true to your deponent’s knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters, your deponent believes them to be true, The grounds for your deponent’s belief as to all matters not stated upon knowledge are as follows: All books, records and correspondence of the petitioner. NATHAN} LY Sworn to before me this Meh ~_ day of June, 2022 Nolary PublicYSCEF Doc No. 2 VED NYSCEF: 06/17/202 STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) 88: COUNTY OF ALBANY. ) Danie! Maler and Joanne Maler, belng duly sworn, dispose and say; Your deponents are petitioners; in the within, proceeding; have read the ennexed petition nd know the contents thereof and the same true to your deponent's knowledge, except those ‘matters thereln which ara atated to be alleged upon information and bella, and as to those ‘matters, your deponents believe them to be true, The grounds for your deponent’s belief as to ail matters not stated upon knowledge are as follows: All books, records’ and correspondence of the petitioner. Daniel Maler ‘Swom to before me this VA by of June, 2022 ‘ Joeune en Joanne Malar NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK ration No, 1084709748 itiYSCEF Doc. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/202 STATE OF NEWYORK) ) a: COUNTY OF ALBANY) KIRK RHATIGAN and RACHEL APUNTE, being duly sworn deposes and says: that your deponents aro petitioners in the within action; that your deponents have read the Petition and know the contents thereof, that the same is true deponent’s knowledge, except as to those matters stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters deponent believes them to be true, The ground for your deponents belief are as follows: All books, records and correspondence of the Petition. RACHEL APUNTE jor to me this /6 day of June, 2022 Notary PublicBF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/202 STATE OF NEWYORK) ) ss: COUNTY OF ALBANY) NICK ESPOSITO, being duly sworn, deposes and says: Your deponent is a petitioner, in the within proceeding; your deponent has read the annexed petition and knows the contents thereof and the same are true to your deponent’s knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters, your deponent believes them to be true, The grounds for your deponent’s belief as to all matters not stated upon knowledge are as follows: All books, records and correspondence of the petitioner, NICK ESPOSIT; Sworn to before me this VA Biny of June, 2022 ns grater New yoRK "tation No, 01DE4763748 ite ey GO 2 Ccommislon Expres Mash 26,2YSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/202 STATEOF NEW YORK) ) ss: COUNTY OF ALBANY) Timatng 60055 SUSAN GROSS, being duly awom, deposes and says: Your deponent is a petitioner, in the within proceeding; your deponent has read the annexed petition and knows the contents thereof and the same are true to your deponent’s knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged upon information end belief, and as to those matters, your deponent believes them to be true. The grounds for your deponent's belief as to all matters not stated upon knowledge ate as follows; All books, records and correspondence of the petitioner. SUSAN'GROSS Swom to before me this L b day of June, 2022 NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE” contain com Ss edDoc. No. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/202 STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) 88: COUNTY OF ALBANY) GERTRUDE PRAPER, being duly sworn, deposes and says: Your deponent is a petitioner, in the within proceeding; your deponent has read the annexed petition and knows the contents thereof and the same are true to your deponent’s ~ knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters, your deponent believes them to be true. The grounds for your deponent's belief as to all matters not stated upon knowledge are as follows; All books, records and correspondence of the petitioner, GERTRUDE PI i Swom to before me this ib Sesay of June, 2022 ‘Nolpry Public NOTARY BUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK Roglstralion No, O1064760748 unified n Albany Count L_conmisionsworeonwcns6,20.23, |YSCEF Doc. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/202 STATE OF NEWYORK) Jas: COUNTY OF ALBANY) CHRISTINE DELSIGNORE, being duly swom, deposes and says: ‘Your deponent is a petitioner, in the within proceeding; your deponent has read the annexed petition and knows the contents thereof and the same are true to your deponent's knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters, your deponent believes them to be true. The grounds for your deponent’s belief as to all matters not stated upon knowledge are as follows; All books, records and cortespondence of the petitioner. DELSIGNORE Swom to before me this lo “By otine, 2022 Notdry Publi NOTAHY PUBLI STATE GF NeW YORK gitar oroeeaato aid Commision Sx hrs 320YSCEF DOC. NO, 1 IVED NYSCEF: 06/17/202 IFICAT, STATE OF NEWYORK) ss: COUNTY OF ALBANY) JOHN BOHL end KATHLEEN BOHL, being duly sworn deposes and says: that your deponents are petitioners in the within action; that your depontents have read the Petition and know the contents thereof, that the same is true deponent’s knowledge, except as to those matters stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters deponent believes them to be true. The ground for your deponents belief are as follows: All books, records and correspondence of the Petition. A he Wh JONN BOHL Kickbese Bok .THLEEN BOHL mn to me this day of June, 2022 ‘Notiry Public NovaRY PUBL TATE OP AE von Patan i Oeereer8 oe Fn Commission ExDoc. No. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/202 STATE OF NEWYORK) dss COUNTY OF ALBANY ) BARBARA RISCAVGE, being duly sworn, deposes and says: ‘Your deponent is a petitioner, in the within proceeding; your deponent has read the annexed petition and knows the contents thereof and the same ere true to your deponent's knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters, your deponent believes them to be true, The grounds for your deponent’s belief as to all matters not stated upon knowledge are as follows: All books, records and correspondence of the petitioner, BARBARA mse a Swom to before me this Le say of june, 2022 Nifary Pubic HAISTOPHER DE NOTARY PUBL, STATE OF NEW YORK ogni Oceareaaa in fe Commission xpos Maren 36, 20.23YSCEF Doc. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/202 STATE OF NEW YORK) ) ss: COUNTY OF ALBANY) ANGELA VANFONDA, being duly sworn, deposes and says: Your deponent is a petitioner, in the within proceeding; your deponent has read the annexed petition and knows the contents thereof and the same are true to your deponent's knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters, your deponent believes them to be true, The grounds for your deponent's belief as to all matters not stated upon knowledge are as follows: All books, records and correspondence of the petitioner. Shey bes of A \ ee ae Q ANGEBA VANFONDA Swom to before me this lo bey of June, 2022 Nftary Public COR NOTARY PuRLiC, Grate OF avalon No, onbee7ear40 len Avery County elon Expos Mare 9,202YSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCE: 6/11/202 VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK) ) set COUNTY OF ALBANY), PHILLIP ROWLANDS and Ss, ROWLANDS, being duly swom deposes and says: that your deponents are petitioners in the within action; that your deponents have read the Petition and know the contents thereof, that the same is true deponent’s knowledge, except as to those matters stated to be alleged upon information and bolief, and gs-tq those matters deponent believes them to be true, The ground for your deponents belief and correspondence of the Petition, Syom to me this day of June, 2022YSCRP BOS. We RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/202 STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF ALBANY =) EBEN COREY. being duly swom, deposes and says: ‘Your deponent is # petitioner, in the within proceeding; your deponent hax rund the finmexed petition and knows the contents thervof and the same are true to your deponent’s knowledge, excapt those matters terein which are state to be alleged upon infomation and belief, and as to those maiters, your deponent believes them to be true, The grounds for your doponent’s belief as to all matters net slated upon i:nowledge are as follows: All books, records ‘and vomrespondence of he path et EBEN COREY Swom to before day of June, 2022 Notee} Public vox Re PRT Ee ron Oe | | OE ET TEP TL 75 TALONYSCEF Doc. No. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: STATE OF NEWYORK 4 1sss COUNTY OF ALBANY} JANINE GOETZ, being duly swom, dopoxes and says ‘Your deponent is petitioner in the within proceeding; your deponent has reud the ‘tanexed petition and knows the contents thereof and the same are true to your deponent’s knowledge, except those matiers therein which ave stated to Be alleged upon information and belief. and as to those mauters, your deponent believes them to be true. The grounds for your oponent's belief as to all matters vot stetex upun kriowledye are as follows: Alt books. records and correspondence aF the sraxiierner ‘Swom to before ms tay ay of June, 2 Noty Publie [ ser TTI 06/17/202YSCEF DOC. NO. 1 VED NYSCEF: 06/17/202 STATEOF NEWYORK ) ) 88: COUNTY OF ALBANY) AMY MUSIKER, being duly sworn, deposes and says: Your deponent is a petitioner, in the within proceeding; your deponent has read the annexed petition and knows the contents thereof and the same are true to your deponent’s knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters, your deponent believes them to be true, The grounds for your deponent’s belief as to all matters not stated upon knowledge are as follows: All books, records and correspondence of the petitioner, AMY MYSIKER Sworn to before me this 6 tay of une, 2022YSCEF Doc. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/202 STATEOF NEWYORK ) ) ss; COUNTY OF ALBANY) Leet Demp Focing duly sworn, deposes and sey Your deponent is a petitioner, in the within proceeding; your deponent has read the annexed petition and knows the contents thereof and the same are true to your deponent’s knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters, your deponent believes them to be true, The grounds for your deponent’s belief as to all matters not stated upon knowledge are as follows: All books, records and correspondence of the petitioner, A Dy —— Sworn to before me this f Z day of June, 2022YSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/202 STATE OFNEWYORK ) Jes: COUNTY OF ALBANY) Sored Susan froans -SPEPHEN KONAS/being duly swom, deposes and says: ‘Your deponent is a petitioner, in the within proceeding; your deponent has read the annexed petition and knows the contents thereof and the same are true to your deponent’s knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated fo be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters, your deponent believes them to be true. The grounds for your deponent's belief as to all matters not stated upon knowledge are as follows: All books, records and correspondence of the petitioner, Swom to before me this Le Brey ot sane, 2022 WUAe al Sagan v Rona ar i) Notary Public NOTARY, PUBLIC. oth “ey tear one eonYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/202 STATE OF NEWYORK ) )ss: COUNTY OF ALBANY LYNNE MCLEER, being duly swom, deposes and says: ‘Your deponent is a petitioner, in the within proceeding; your deponent has read the annexed petition and knows the contents thereof and the same are true to your deponent’s knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters, your deponent believes them to be tue. The grounds for your deponent’s belief as to all matters not stated upon knowledge are as follows: All books, records and correspondence of the petitioner, LS wv ‘\MCLEER ‘Sworn to before me this Lets of June, 2022YSCEF Doc. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: STATE OF NEWYORK ) ss: COUNTY OF ALBANY) Sheer Cantield veins duly sworn, deposes and says: Your deponent is a petitioner, in the within proceeding; your deponent has read the annexed petition and knows the contents thereof and the same are true to your deponent’s knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters, your deponent believes them to be true, The grounds for your deponent’s belief as to all matters not stated upon knowledge are as follows: All books, records and correspondence ofthe petitioner. Sworn to before me this Le bay of June, 2022 06/17/202